Opinion The 'Carlton related stuff that doesn't need it's own thread' thread

[Canyouhearthedrums]

I suppose one problem I see here, is thinking that a "yes" vote represents equality. I certainly don't see a majority homosexual votership being given an official voice on the legitimacy of heterosexual marriage.

This whole question of SSM fundamentally undermines equality in my eyes. The question should be; firstly, do two consenting adults have a right to commit to each other through marriage and enjoy the benefits that commitment allows? Secondly, do we adhere to the notion of gender equality, that neither man nor woman shall face discriminiation based on their gender? If these two questions are answered yes, it is an agreement to conditions that effect everyone equally, without the need to segregate anyone into a sub-category.

The club should've remained silent on the vote itself, other than to say it supports true equality.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make and I work in this area. How on earth is a vote for yes not a vote for equality? It is literally a vote to ensure that legal rights and protections operate on all adults equally.

 

[teagueyubeauty]

Individuals are voting, and we know where MOST of us stand. The more we get institutions involved the more we invite group think and lose the individual in it. It then has the opposite effect of generating a counter movement: anti-this and anti-that. This is the rise of the opposition to political correctness.

Trust in people to think for themselves. Don't fear that institutions, incl. CFC, are determinants in how people think.

Finally, it's outrageous we have to have this 'debate' anyway. Let's keep that in mind and not argue amongst ourselves. Have faith in humanity!

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

That is exactly how the world is working nowadays, people are so sick of being told/advised of what to do and how it is that they'll do the opposite to be rebellious.

I have my own views on this debate, a footy forum isn't a place to debate it and I don't think it's footy's place to ram it down people's throats as they are the pleasure of people from every spectrum of the human race.

 

[Canyouhearthedrums]

Our soon to be new President? That wont happen.

The faux-outrage on the CFC's statement is somewhat comical.
Whether Carlton 'needed' to put forward any statement at all, can be debated but not for the content.

Let's just keep our focus on what the club is set-up to do: Football.

Not sure you can ignore the club's place in the wider Victorian community. Not to mention the fact that the club is nothing more than the sum of its members and there is a large element of self-interest in keeping them supportive and engaged. Personally, I admire the clubs who go above and beyond to support causes, not just because I may believe in the cause but because I see it as an effort to engage the base.

 

[Monkey King]

Unfortunately I am forced to eat Big Macs because I live on the street next to yours. I have asked to be allowed to be vegetarian because eating meat makes me ill, but the council wont even consider it unless I get every person on both our streets to sign a petition forcing them to think about considering it. They haven't promised me anything, just they will then let everyone on the council vote however they like about the outcome.

I'd hope my neighbors would tell the council to stick the petition up their arse and vote them out of office, rather than engaging in a farce as though they had some right to decide over what I was permitted to eat.

... unfortunately you are directly responsible for deciding whether I have to, or if I get a choice in the matter.

No I'm not. You'd be trying to hold me responsible, but that's not a truth. That's just a conclusion from some construct you've created. It's like those stupid newsletter subscription invitations you see online; [left tab] Yes - I want to receive emails on how to be fit [right tab] No - I want to be unhealthy. I exist outside of those narrow constructs and can choose to simply not engage them, leaving you to gauge my non-participation however you devise. Throwing your conclusions back on to me is just part of this game; but I'm not playing.

 

[teagueyubeauty]

No. Politics, whether we like it or not, is a clumsy, obvious business.
When the Club made that statement it must have known that it would, as it has, atracted significant adverse response from all types of ppl including, especially, Carlton ppl, strongly opposing its soft utensil stance.
Get a Hard On Triggs and that fat Italian President. What's his name???!

Rubbish, you are being a pillock and a flog. It's people like yourself that will ensure this issue stays in the dark ages.

Stop trying to ram s**t down people's throats and open your eyes, the world is awake to your type and will vote just to spite people like yourself.

The No camp love people like you

 

[Canyouhearthedrums]

Rubbish, you are being a pillock and a flog. It's people like yourself that will ensure this issue stays in the dark ages.

Stop trying to ram s**t down people's throats and open your eyes, the world is awake to your type and will vote just to spite people like yourself.

The No camp love people like you

I don't read the Hun but I bet the front page has some version of Carlton refuses to support marriage equality". Surer than night follows day.

 

[Monkey King]

I have no idea what point you are trying to make and I work in this area. How on earth is a vote for yes not a vote for equality? It is literally a vote to ensure that legal rights and protections operate on all adults equally.

Participating in this farce is a vote for inequality. That's my opinion.

 

[teagueyubeauty]

One of GENIUS was it? So much so that it's the onltyAFL clubs stance that is on the front page of all Fairfax publications on line.
Great move carlton.
U idiots!

Mate, it's people like you that make me want to vote NO even though I don't believe in it.

Wake up to yourself, people have an individual choice so ramming s**t down people's throats because you don't agree with it pushes those sitting on the fence to have a view you will not like.

 

[Omega Blue]

The club should have just stayed out of the issue, a stance anyway alienates 2 out of the 3 people.
A yes stance alienates the no stance
A no stance alienates the yes stance
And any stance alienates the people who are sick of seeing organisations try to make I'll gotten gains out of political issues.

 

[Broadside]

But why do that? Given that it will invite, as it has, a big adverse response. Just look at twitter.
Why not just say nothing?
I think that what the Club did was dumb, on a best case analysis.
MEB ask yourself this question. If the decision makers at the Club were intelligent females, would the Club have issued this statement? I think not. Dumb males!!!

do you really think Twitter is representative of what most people think? who cares what "Twitter" thinks? every single day there is an article about someone, somewhere being outraged on Twitter, it's what Twitter does best (worst). The club encouraged members to vote and have their say, how can they be criticised for that other by perennial outrage merchants? I voted yes for what it's worth. Perhaps to quieten the Twitterrati they could have remained silent but the statement itself was absolutely fine.

 

[Big_Luch]

The politicians created this mess by refusing to take responsibility themselves. Spineless bastards.

Marriage equality should never be this big of an issue in this day and age, just legislate to allow it and be done with it.

The plebiscite/postal vote was taken to the election. Blame the electorate if you don't like the 'vote'.

 

[HARKER]

Not sure you can ignore the club's place in the wider Victorian community. Not to mention the fact that the club is nothing more than the sum of its members and there is a large element of self-interest in keeping them supportive and engaged. Personally, I admire the clubs who go above and beyond to support causes, not just because I may believe in the cause but because I see it as an effort to engage the base.

Has every club felt compelled to make a statement though?
It doesn't seem to be the case and maybe we made the mistake in wanting to be 'seen' as front-runners on social issues.
This what happens when you go full-PC. I think the AFL also made a mistake at their gimmicky attempt yesterday.
The club supports equality and that really should be enough, without having to make a stance on every issue that falls under that banner.

Anyway, it's already tired and somewhat boring. Next.......

 

[gab213]

Im sure the club communicated their stanc

The plebiscite/postal vote was taken to the election. Blame the electorate if you don't like the 'vote'.

It should never have been an election issue, there should never have been an option for a plebiscite/postal vote. That's just an example of the politicians not taking responsibility. All they needed to do was legislate which is what they are there for.

 

[Soapy V]

The club should have just stayed out of the issue, a stance anyway alienates 2 out of the 3 people.
A yes stance alienates the no stance
A no stance alienates the yes stance
And any stance alienates the people who are sick of seeing organisations try to make I'll gotten gains out of political issues.

and if they hadn't people will whinge. They can't win either way. People just like to get on their high horse and push and agenda especially if comments don't suit them.

If a comment by CFC is affecting people's decision then they hadn't taken the topic seriously

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Plenty of other clubs have come out with very definitive statements. Ours seems to be a bit more...diplomatic? If you read between the lines, they clearly support the 'yes' vote, but they're trying not to alienate 'no' voting members.

Exactly. I had no problem with the statement. It was clear they support SSM, but people are getting upset because their stance was too passive. Supporting SSM doesn't mean you have to support it aggressively and shove your opinion down other people's throats.
All the people whinging are basically angry because the club isn't as vocal in their support as they are. Big deal!?! They're still clearly supporting the cause.

 

[ShanDog]

Can we go back to corporations telling us what to think now please?

 

[Metalcrusher]

As I have stated before to work colleagues... SSM people have the same entitlement to be miserable as the rest of us .....

 

[ferrisb]

I don't have any gay friends or family (that I know) but have been firmly in the yes camp since I became aware of the possibility of allowing SSM.

I would like organisations that I am associated with to come out with a strong 'yes statement' because this is a cause I feel strongly about. BUT there are 30-40% of the population that don't share my view, many very strongly in opposition.

I think the club's statement was pretty clear where they stand but stopped short of speaking on behalf of all members (which arguably it can't do). I think that's OK. Not sure if it's little gutless or maybe very cleverly worded.

TL;DR My heart says the club took a bit of a cop out and should get off the fence. My head says this was a very smart statement, taking a stance but trying not to alienate fans at the same time.

 

[Kramer1]

If a comment by CFC is affecting people's decision then they hadn't taken the topic seriously

Pretty well this for me. The club doesn't get a vote so I don't know why their thoughts on the matter would be of interest. Respecting individual choice is the right stance.

 

[lopezz]

Has anyone read the other blues related articles in the news today?

 

[ShanDog]

I don't have any gay friends or family (that I know) but have been firmly in the yes camp since I became aware of the possibility of allowing SSM.

I would like organisations that I am associated with to come out with a strong 'yes statement' because this is a cause I feel strongly about. BUT there are 30-40% of the population that don't share my view, many very strongly in opposition.

I think the club's statement was pretty clear where they stand but stopped short of speaking on behalf of all members (which arguably it can't do). I think that's OK. Not sure if it's little gutless or maybe very cleverly worded.

TL;DR My heart says the club took a bit of a cop out and should get off the fence. My head says this was a very smart statement, taking a stance but trying not to alienate fans at the same time.

Yes.

The club - a corporate entity - released a principled, balanced yet supportive statement. This is how it should be done. Unfortunately, ideologues are losing their s**t over it because they don't like principles or balance, only hard campaigning and 'us and them' mentalities.

 

[dumb]

None of the other clubs that state they are signatories are telling members how to vote either.

 

[Gethelred]

Don't mind Jamo having a go; don't mind the club's statement.

One's an outspoken individual using his stature to campaign for a side of this issue, the other's a club with a much wider set of priorities, and a much greater need for diplomacy.

I'm all for equality; I'm not so sure, though, about attacking those who disagree with me.

 

[Broadside]

Perhaps the club should have said nothing so as not to offend someone, somewhere. But they can't be criticised for what they actually did say, and that is that it supports equality and encourages members to vote on this issue. The Twitter outrage is same old, same old.

 

[Blue Pulse]

Of course, if you are of a certain opinion or view and you constantly have friends, people you admire, clubs you support, businesses you support telling you to reconsider then I think people will re-asses.

For some it may not change but I feel racism in sport wouldn't be as widely condemned and supported at the level it is today without the campaign from the AFL and other codes.

Agree to a point, but, most people have a pretty strong opinion on this and I don't feel that the opinion of a sporting body will sway people either way.

Is this vote not about respecting the rights and equality of what is a minority group at the moment? However, if people choose to vote opposite to others they are being ostracised for their opinion because it may differ to the majority?